Conspiracy: The Bailout Is Actually An International Ransom to Prevent Another 9/11

jf123-

Since I could not find any theories or hypotheses presented on 911truth.org website I invite you (and others on this thread who are accusing me of trying to spread disinformation) to post your most favorite conspiracy theory (or website link) that was hatched from within the 911 truth movement on this thread.

I would also appreciate a web link.

You can even post your own hypothesis or theory....I don't care whose it is.

You can post it in any format you want...using the 5w's like I am going to do, or you can write it all out in a few sentences or paragraphs.

I think it would make for a good running dialogue and a good debate to see all the different theories side by side on the same thread.

And I think that it's only fair that if you're going to pick apart my hypothesis, that you also present one of your own, too.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
Does that seem reasonable to you?

seem reasonable??

I don't care what seems reasonable.

I don't make assumptions based on speculation, I am only interested in the science.

The whole point of the video is that the fire was not that hot...maybe it was nothing but a smoldering fire, I don't know but again I don't care to speculate and make assumptions, I side with the equipment and the evidence.

I have no reason to think a hotter fire existed when no proof of it exists.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Jezus]

If papers burned, which we can see they did, then the fire was hotter. Paper ignites at 451 degrees F, not 220 degrees F so the 220 figure was wrong based on the fact that 451 is higher then 220. Does that help or are you just trying to avoid reality so you can be right?

Paper did burn in the fires. That's a reality.

Here are some typical temps

Typical temperatures of fires and flames
* Candle flame: 1000 °C (1832 °F)
* Smoldering cigarette:
-Temperature without drawing: side of the lit portion; 400 °C (750 °F); middle of the lit portion: 585 °C (1110 °F)

-Temperature during drawing: middle of the lit portion: 700°C (1290 °F)

So a candle flame is hotter then the WTC fires? RRIIIGGHHHTTTT.


[edit on 27-12-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by nikiano


Just to start, I'm not accusing you of spreading DISINFORMATION but possibly incorrect information. In my opinion, spreading disinformation is when one is knowingly spreading false information. I don't believe you are deliberately trying to lie or deceive anyone.

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question correctly but here goes.

My favorite conspiracy theory relating to 9/11.
Some in the truth movement think the planes that hit the pentagon and WTC's never existed and were really....get this.... HOLOGRAMS.

I and a number of others have debunked this silly idea to death on another thread. One brilliant individual with access to high powered lasers, actually did experiments and posted them for all to see, which showed how the planes could NOT have been holograms.

What do I really thing happened on 9/11?
Pretty much what the NIST report says.
What the report doesn't say is that the government, due to massive incompetence, allowed 9/11 to happen.
I simply don't believe in the "theory" of the Hyper Competent Government so based on that, it would be impossible for them to pull of an inside job as is described in the truth movement.

The other problem I see is that there is not a single truth movement theory. Most of the theories (I use the term VERY loosely), contradict each other or have not real science behind them.

Now let me be clear, my personal belief is that our current administration is the most corrupt in our nations history. I never believed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, I never bought the fact that we can't find OBL.
I know the current administration is full of crooks, liars and murderers.
That being said, after reviewing all the data related to 9/11, I have never seen anything compelling enough to disuade me from believing the NIST reports.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by izopen

Originally posted by nikiano

While those are all fine goals (I'm all for government reform and exposing government lies myself), you'll see that nowhere in their mission statement does it say that one of their goals is to come up with the truth themselves.

Yes - this is very interesting. I think that the actions of Drs Wood and Reynolds are the closest we have gotten to a true independent enquiry into some of the events of 9/11 - yet they are completely marginalised not only by the mainstream media but the the 9/11 "truth movement" in general. Indeed, I wrote an article about this earlier this year if any reader is interested:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Wow....excellent article. Thank you for posting it.

It shows how there are plenty of debunkers out there trying to debunk anything that does not go along with the "official" conspiracy theory, and it shows their tactics.

One of the posters right now (I won't say which) seems to be using those very same tactics.

Anyway, thanks. I will definitely be pouring over the information and the web links within it tonight.



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
Does that seem reasonable to you?

seem reasonable??

I don't care what seems reasonable.

I don't make assumptions based on speculation, I am only interested in the science.

The whole point of the video is that the fire was not that hot...maybe it was nothing but a smoldering fire, I don't know but again I don't care to speculate and make assumptions, I side with the equipment and the evidence.

I have no reason to think a hotter fire existed when no proof of it exists.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Jezus]

If papers burned, which we can see they did, then the fire was hotter. Paper ignites at 451 degrees F, not 220 degrees F so the 220 figure was wrong based on the fact that 451 is higher then 220. Does that help or are you just trying to avoid reality so you can be right?

Paper did burn in the fires. That's a reality.

I'm avoiding reality????

The equipment said the temperate was lower...period. How can you possibly make the assumption that the equipment MUST be wrong based off of your own personal judgment of what the fire was like?

Unless you have some kind of proof (video of the what EXACTLY was burning ) you are doing nothing but making assumptions off your own speculation.

I can't even believe this debate is really happening...this is completely ridiculous and illogical.

reply to post by Jezus


Yes, you're being illogical. Paper, which burned inside the WTC's burn at 451 degrees F. This is a fact. The video said 220 degrees F so either the video was wrong or no paper burned in the WTC. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If I find one video showing one piece of burning paper, the video is wrong. Wanna bet I can find the video????

Is it that you're just not familiar with combustion temperatures for various materials? or is it more important that you have your way as opposed to having the correct information?

Facts are facts. You denying them doesn't make them less factual, it just makes you look more foolish.

jf123-

Thank you for replying, but I asked for a short hypothesis or theory. The NIST report is not a hypothesis; it probably contains hundreds of pages.

I would appreciate it if you would post the working theory or central hypothesis of the NIST report, or your own hypothesis or theory, and not just say that you believe "Pretty much what the NIST report says."

That's an evasive answer.

I don't think anybody wants to wade through hundreds of pages of a report to get to the main conclusions or general hypothesis.

If the NIST report did not have a working theory or hypothesies, could you at least post the "summary statement" or "general conclusions" portion that comes at the end of any large report?

If not, could you post a web link to the NIST report?

Also, you seem to be a fairly intelligent guy. Could you give me a basic summary of what you believe the NIST report says? Just the important points would be fine.



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jezus

 

Yes, you're being illogical. Paper, which burned inside the WTC's burn at 451 degrees F. This is a fact. The video said 220 degrees F so either the video was wrong or no paper burned in the WTC. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If I find one video showing one piece of burning paper, the video is wrong. Wanna bet I can find the video????

I'm not debating this.

Maybe paper was burning, maybe it wasn't, but I still have no reason to discard hard scientific evidence based off of speculation on what might have happened.

Thinking you can ignore the evidence because of what you think SHOULD have happened is delusional.

LEts remember this is about the bailout. The Big Fat steal deal of the millieum. They stole Billions and made that Disappear like magic. How could they do this? We really have no controll here at our level. People died for us to have what we got and we sit here on our duff just letting these people rob us. This is treason, it is trechary from the highest levels. It is a new world order mofia from the like I could never imagine. I want you all to understand what I am saying here, for some will think I am a nut job. You are all under a form of mind controll so strong that they can come right in to your home and kill all your family and you wouldn't even notice. I believe this for I have seen this. How can any of you just sit there and watch this dribble, watch them steall all of your retirement and social sucrity if it were not true. I watched you lay down and let them do this. Hell if our leaders lead like this in France they would be swinging from a tree. You have lost it all and own nothing, nothing around you did not cost you money or was made here in the states. Norman Rock well is Dead, and all of you let the corrisive nature of our givernment kill this dream we call America. Sad Day, It sickens me to see this. A voice is needed to tell you, to inspire you to tare down those ivory towers and kill the lords of pain and envy. The decievers have risen from the firey pit and you just let them in, let them in. YOU DISGUIST ME.... idiot sheep.

Jf123-

In regards to this statement that you made:

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by nikiano

 

My favorite conspiracy theory relating to 9/11.
Some in the truth movement think the planes that hit the pentagon and WTC's never existed and were really....get this.... HOLOGRAMS.


[edit on 27-12-2008 by jfj123]

Actually I don't find that laughable at all.

When you watch the airplanes go into the building on the videos, anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of the periodic table of elements will say to himself or herself; "Um...that was an airplane made up of mostly aluminum. Steel is made up mostly of iron and other elements that are heavier than aluminum. The aluminum plane should not have sliced cleanly through the 110-story steel building."

At least, that's what I thought, and I took A LOT of chemistry in college. I also know the basic laws of physics.

Let's look at the evidence: Aluminum is number 13 on the periodic table of elements. And steel, is made up of mostly iron, which is number 26 on the period table of the elements. Also, according to wikipedia, steel is an alloy made up of mostly iron, carbon (no. 6, but only makes up about 2% of steel), and also various other elements are used such as manganese (no. 25), chromium (no. 24), vanadium (no. 23), and tungsten (no. 74.)

link: en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, even anybody who has a basic understanding of chemistry and physics should know that:
1. Aluminum is lighter than steel
2. There should have been at least SOME resistance when the aluminum plane hit the steel building.

I would have expected, for examples, that the extremely light aluminum wings would maybe have fallen off outside the building. (Same thing with the Pentagon crash, if it really was an airplane that hit the side of the building.) At the very least, however, I would have expected some resistance, but there seemed to be none on the videos. That does not follow the laws of physics.

Just curious, jf123...did you take any physics or chemistry classes in high school or college?

Because if you did, you wouldn't really find the hypothesis that the planes IN THE VIDEOS were holograms absurd. Because the planes in the videos did not really follow the laws of physics.

Particularly, they did not follow Newton's third law of motion which states: any time a force acts from one object to another, there is an equal force acting back on the original object. There should have been some resistance when the planes first impacted the steel buildings, but there was none (on the airplanes in the videos).

However, if lots of people on the ground did see planes hit the building, then that means that planes did inded hit the buildings, but the planes in the videos were faked. Why? Maybe because the true identity of the planes needed to be hidden by somebody.

But in any case, the planes on the videos do NOT behave as aluminum planes should when impacting a 110 story steel building. Thus, the hologram theory is not that absurd.

---


Ok, on with my hypothesis....


(reposted to divide 1 large post into 2 separate smaller posts)



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

SECTION 2: MY GENERAL HYPOTHESIS

I Statement of hypothesis:


I hypothesize that there is a link between the events of 9/11, the current global economic crisis, and the recent 770 billion dollar government bailout (TARP). I propose that the bailout is a ransom that has been demanded to prevent another 9/11 type of event (or worse) from happening.


(continued on next post)

What do I really thing happened on 9/11?
Pretty much what the NIST report says.
What the report doesn't say is that the government, due to massive incompetence, allowed 9/11 to happen.

I have never seen anything compelling enough to disuade me from believing the NIST reports.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by jfj123]

Ok, so I found the final conclusion of the NIST report on a website, and this is what it says:

On April 5, 2005, NIST held a press conference to release preliminary reports on the result of its nearly three-year investigation. Lead investigator Shyam Sunder made clear the gist of NIST's findings: damaged fireproofing was the chief culprit in the collapses.

Sorry, but that is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory. That is a report summary as to how the towers came down. It is just a very small part of the events of 9/11.

A complete conspiracy theory should contain the 5 w's; who, what, when, why, and how. All you have told me that you believe is that towers came down as a result of damaged fireproofing, and that you believed the government allowed it to happen.

Why did they allow it to happen? Every conspiracy theory needs a motive. What is your motive for the government allowing the events of 9/11 to happen? Do you believe as many 9/11 conspiracy theorists suggest, that it was allowed as a false flag operation? Or do you believe more along the lines of Alex Jones who thinks that the American Government wants to be a part of the NWO (New World Order) and enslave and kill off 80% of the world's population? Or do you have another motive?


Also, please give more supporting evidence for your favorite conspiracy theory of who was involved in 9/11, who allowed it to happen and why, as you keep asking from me.



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Section 2: General Hypothesis (cont)

Hypothesis: I hypothesize that there is a link between the events of 9/11, the current global economic crisis, and the recent 770 billion dollar government bailout (TARP). I propose that the bailout is a ransom that has been demanded to prevent another 9/11 type of event (or worse) from happening.

II.Further expansion of general statement

In regards to 9/11

A. Who:

I hypothesize that that those who carried out the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 were either part of a rogue group of government scientists, a rogue group of military troops, a rogue group of black ops, a rogue group of intelligence personnel, or a terror cell embedded within and scattered throughout the vast network of government agencies, government contractors, and universities that are currently working on government-funded weapons projects.

In contrast to the current prevailing 9/11 conspiracy theories that are out there right now, which suggest that the United States government was directly involved in the design and orchestration of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, or allowed and the attacks of 9/11 to happen, I do not suggest that the government was directly involved in planning or allowing the events of 9/11 to happen.

I believe that whoever did plan and carry out the events of 9/11 did it as a demonstration: they wanted to show that they were in control, and they wanted to show the US government what they could do with a new weapon they now had control over.

In addition, they did it in a way as to deliberately plant clues for future investigators (because they knew 9/11 would be heavily investigated) that would frame the U.S. government, when people started investigating the events of 9/11.

Whoever did this, whether they were rogue or whether they were embedded terrorists, must have had high security clearance. Why? Many reasons, but one of them is because they knew that the government was planning a terror drill on 9/11. This makes it look like the government planned it, but in fact, I believe it was a set up to frame the government.

The US government, realizing that their own weapons programs had been used against them, and realizing that they had also been framed in the process, immediately blamed Al Quaeda terrorists and tried to stymie the investigation. Why?

Well, first of all they didn't want to be framed. Second of all, they didn't want the world to know that we had lost control of our own weapons programs. If the world found that out, all hell would break lose, and other countries would demand that our weapons projects and defense agency be dismantled.

Secondly, and probably most important, if the US admitted what happened, they would have to admit what kinds of weapons system it was that brought down the WTC and attacked the Pentagon, and what kinds of other weapons they were working on. The world would probably freak out as a whole if they found out the kinds of things we were working on. The US knew that at best, the world would demand that the US be held accountable for what happened by disclosing all the weapons projects we were currently working on. And at worst, they knew that other countries may even attack us to prevent the weapons from being used again.

So, because they couldn't admit the truth to the world, they instead tried to catch the perpetrators themselves before they struck again.

But how? Well, they knew that they were already inside, so they didn't care about securing our borders. Instead, they started looking at ways to track those who were already living within our borders. Hence: the Patriot Act.

Now, I'm not saying that it was right for the US govt to enact the Patriot Act, but if that is indeed what happened, then it is understandable WHY they did it. They were frantic to catch whoever was behind it, but our own legal system prevented them from investigating and spying on our own citizens. So, they decided to change the legal system.

The government did tell us that they were trying to catch embedded terror cells within the US. That much they were honest with us about. But they weren't honest about the weapons used to take down the WTC, and the potential for them being used again. Because then they would have to tell the world about what the weapons could do.

(continued on next post)



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

B. What

So, what was the weapon used on the WTC towers to bring them down?

Personally, I believe it was a weapon that was in the "in research and development" phase at the time of 9/11. Maybe in addition to the events of 9/11 being a demonstration and an attack on our government, it was also part of the "research" phase. (Yep...check...it works.)

So, if it was a weapon in the R&D phase, we obviously don't know exactly what it was.
(So, for those who keep asking me to tell them what weapons there are in existence that can turn steel into dust, well if it was a weapon in R&D, we obviously don't know about it yet.)

However, although we don't know exactly what what the weapon IS (and I doubt we're going to see it in any government weapons catalog in the near future), we do know what it DID. Maybe, if we make a list of what it DOES....we'll be able to figure out what it IS. Deductive reasoning is actually quite common in science.

That's how taxonomy works in the biological sciences. For example, if you discover a species that has never been identified before, you start with what you know about it, and then begin to figure out its' taxonomy (Kingdom, genus, species, etc....) It's actually a very common method of reasoning in the scientific world. Even if you only find a feather of a bird that has never been seen before, you can figure out some things about the bird by studying that feather.

My guess is that people in CSI do the same thing. If they come to a crime scene, and they know that a weapon was used, but that weapon is no where it be found, they figure out what the weapon did, they look at the signatures it left behind, and they use deductive reasoning.

So, let's use deductive reasoning on this new "super-weapon". What can it do? What is it capable of?

It can:
1. Turn steel into dust (you can see videos of that happening on Dr. Wood's site.)
2. Burn cars, twisting and warping the metal, getting rid of all the door handles on the cars in a single area. Flipping over cars. Setting cars on fire.
3. One eye witness said she saw a plane in the sky go "poof" into a fireball....and then it was gone.
4. Shake the ground so that it felt like an earthquake (eye witness transcript)
5. Eliminate all filing cabinets, except for 1 that was shrunk, but leaving the paper.
6. Create a "dust volcano" as the towers collapsed. It looked like a volcanic eruption.
7. Collapse the towers from the top down at free-fall speed.
8. Create a hole in the center of the WTC buildings (once again, see Dr. Wood's website)


(That is just a preliminary list for now...if anyone else cares to submit other properties of the WTC collapses that cannot be explained by controlled demolition, please feel free to submit them.)

Well, I am not a weapons expert, by any means. (Heck, I don't even own a gun.) But, based on the above evidence, there have been different theories submitted by various researchers who are more savvy in this area than I am.

There is Dr. Judy Wood who is currently involved in a court case:

DR. JUDY WOOD Plaintiff/Relator,
on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs.

Defendants:

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA),
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC),
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.,
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. (WJE),
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.(RJA),
COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC. (SGH),
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP (SOM),
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP (GMS),
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. (HA),
ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.,
S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC. (GA),
TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC. (TA),
AJMAL ABBASI,
EDUARDO KAUSEL,
DAVID PARKS,
DAVID SHARP,
JOSEF VAN DYCK,
KASPAR WILLIAM,
DANIELE VENEZANO,
DATASOURCE, INC.,
GEOSTAATS, INC.,
NuSTATS,

Here is the link to her court case:

www.drjudywood.com...

And once again, here is her website, complete with photos and videos.

www.drjudywood.com...


We also have Dr. Morgan Reynolds who is suing the NIST on behalf of the United States.

link: www.nomoregames.net...


It also seems that the 9/11 truth movement is trying to discredit these two researchers.
For evidence of that, once again, see the article:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Also, the theories that danman submitted here on this thread, in regards to HAARP, are interesting. I still have not had time to go through them, but I will. Check those out, too.



(continued on next post)




[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

reply to post by nikiano

The whole issue of the planes and the buildings has been discussed exhaustively in other threads. I think, as I believe you do, that the planes should have broken up, at least partially, on the outside of the buildings. But I did want to include a point of information that I learned in the course of discussing this issue in another thread, months ago.

The kind of aluminum that is used to manufacture airplane fuselages has a higher tensile strength than the structural steel used in the outer columns of the WTC. Tensile strength alone of course, is not the only consideration in a case like this. Other factors, discussed in other threads also come into play. Just mentioning the fact that spider webs also have a higher tensile strength than steel makes the point for the purposes of general illustration.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Tensile strength or not, it still doesn't add up in my mind. It's a big red flag.

Think of what happens when a car going 90 mph hits something as small as a light post.
The car is demolished. It doesn't go through the lightpost. It crumples up. The car I'm sure has lots of parts that are stronger and heavier than the lightpost, but still, the car will crumple like an accordion, or even be wrapped around the light pole. I never seen a car go THROUGH a light post like a hot knife through butter.

Has anyone ever seen a car go through a light pole?

As scientists, we are allowed to base our arguments on real world experiences and real world observations, and basic scientific knowledge.

Look what happened when those two Amtrack trains collided with each other on the tracks in California this year. Did they go through each other like butter? No. Each one met resistance, and they both crumpled like accordions.

Look at videos of plane crashes. What happens when a jet plane hits another object? Debris flies all over the place.

Newton's third law of motion states that any time a force acts from one object to another, there is an equal force acting back on the original object. Therefore, when a moving object (airplane) meets a non-moving object (giant steel building) SOMETHING is going to happen to the body of the plane upon first impact before the jet engines blow up. On the videos of the airplane, there was no resistance.


Ok, so if they are going to use the "tensile strength" logic to explain why the plane flew through the first wall with no resistance, why didn't it continue to fly through the second wall of the WTC with no resistance? Why didn't it just continue right on through, because the plane had a higher tensile strength than the steel? Why did it suddenly just "blow up?" if it was stronger than steel?

Nope. It doesn't add up.

But in any case... my theory doesn't include holographic planes. (At least, not yet. But like I said, I reserve the right to amend or build upon my hypothesis later on.)

I was just letting jf123 know that based on my knowledge of chemistry and physics, I didn't think the "holographic planes hypothesis" was absurd, considering the videos I saw of the aluminum planes slicing cleanly through a steel building, like a hot knife through a stick of butter. Big red flag.

I know what jf123 is trying to do, he's trying to lump me in with all the so-called crazy "no plane people" that the 9/11 truth movment is always trying to debunk.

You notice how he STILL refuses to post any real hypothesis of his own, because that would leave HIM open to having his hypothesis being torn apart.

That's how these debunkers work. Debunk, debunk, debunk, but never provide theory of their own. They never leave themselves open to any REAL debate, because they never provide any real theories of their own. Very cowardly indeed.


Ok, on with my hypothesis....tomorrow. I'm tired.




[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by nikiano
But in any case... my theory doesn't include holographic planes. (At least, not yet. But like I said, I reserve the right to amend or build upon my hypothesis later on.)

There is an interesting discussion of planes as holograms in the following thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it has been shown that there was video manipulation in the news broadcasts on 9/11 and that has led some people to believe that the planes might have been holograms.

Personally, I think that video manipulation may also have concealed other aspects of the impacts, possibly rockets being fired from the planes or explosions just prior to impact.

It's very hard to be completely confident of any one explanation with regard to the plane impacts, at least for a thoughtful person.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Thanks, I'll check it out.

Originally posted by nikiano
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

I never seen a car go THROUGH a light post like a hot knife through butter. Have you?

Newton's third law of motion states that any time a force acts from one object to another, there is an equal force acting back on the original object. Therefore, when a moving object (airplane) meets a non-moving object (giant steel building) SOMETHING is going to happen to the body of the plane upon first impact before the jet engines blow up. On the videos of the airplane, there was no resistance. Then the plane suddenly "blew up" inside the building.

Well I've seen 'frangible' light poles hit by cars and they simply snap off at the base with minimal damage to the vehicle, as they're designed to do. Wooden poles and trees are far less forgiving. In the case of the WTC wall columns they are definitely not frangible by design but we still need to consider what's going on in terms of Newton's laws of motion. The impacted object does attempt to reply with a force equal to that of the impacting object's kinetic energy but what happens when the required resisting force exceeds the UTS (ultimate tensile strength) of the material?
It's quite simple - it fails by bending, snapping or shearing allowing the impacting mass to pass through minus the energy expended in that impact. Enough impacts and motion is stopped and we're talking about 100 000kg projectiles travelling at over 200m/s here.

There may indeed be a link between the current economic woes and the attacks on the WTC. The World Trade Centre was the very symbol of western economic power and it would have been a target regardless of which country it was located in. The economic tactics and policies emanating from that place and the effect it had on middle eastern countries (I'm not going to specify any in particular) could be interpreted as 'passive terrorism' by certain fringe groups based in those places and if you want to believe no-one in those areas wishes you harm, well good luck to you.